I happen to have a folder with 300,000 reports and took a look. Reporters can
be pretty
random about what they do.
Comcast and Yahoo put angle brackets around the report ID but Google and
Microsoft don't and
nobody else does as far as I can see, so I would change the last line of the
ABNF to:
1*FWS dot-atom-text ; from RFC 5322
or I suppose we could make them optional
1*FWS [%x3c] dot-atom-text [%x3e] ; from RFC 5322
It appears that Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Dear Authors and DMARC group,
>
>In my continuing review of errata posted against RFC 7489, my view is
>that the following erratum should be verified, and I intend to do so in
>the next month unless given good cause not to do so. My logic is that
>running code in the wild should trump whatever is in the spec. Could
>people please go over the ABNF with a fine tooth comb?
>
>Eliot
>
>*
>*
>
>*Status: Reported
>Type: Technical
>Publication Format(s) : TEXT*
>Reported By: Kaspar Etter
>Date Reported: 2021-03-15
>
>Section 7.2.1.1. says:
>
> dmarc-subject = %x52.65.70.6f.72.74 1*FWS ; "Report"
> %x44.6f.6d.61.69.6e.3a 1*FWS ; "Domain:"
> domain-name 1*FWS ; from RFC 6376
> %x53.75.62.6d.69.74.74.65.72.3a ; "Submitter:"
> 1*FWS domain-name 1*FWS
> %x52.65.70.6f.72.74.2d.49.44.3a ; "Report-ID:"
> msg-id ; from RFC 5322
>
>It should say:
>
> dmarc-subject = %x52.65.70.6f.72.74 1*FWS ; "Report"
> %x44.6f.6d.61.69.6e.3a 1*FWS ; "Domain:"
> domain-name 1*FWS ; from RFC 6376
> %x53.75.62.6d.69.74.74.65.72.3a ; "Submitter:"
> 1*FWS domain-name 1*FWS
> %x52.65.70.6f.72.74.2d.49.44.3a ; "Report-ID:"
> 1*FWS %x3c dot-atom-text %x3e ; from RFC 5322
>
>Notes:
>
>According to RFC 5322, msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">"
>[CFWS]. The example given in Section 7.2.1.1. (<2002.02.15.1>) does not
>adhere to this and neither do reports in the wild. Instead of referring
>to the msg-id ABNF, I suggest that we refer to the dot-atom-text ABNF
>and include "<" and ">" as ASCII characters. This also has the advantage
>of getting rid of CFWS. According to RFC 5322, "comments may be included
>in structured field bodies" but "Subject" is not a structured header field.
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>[Alternative: text/html]
>-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
